The Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas - ldwilkersonministries

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda by Thomas Aquinas 849
than others; and again opportunities for pleasure which inflame the concupiscence are nearer to hand for some
people than for others. Such like weakness of concupiscence diminishes merit, whereas strength of
concupiscence increases it. On the other hand, weakness or strength of concupiscence arises from a
praiseworthy spiritual cause, for instance the vehemence of charity, or the strength of reason, as in the case of
a temperate man. In this way weakness of concupiscence, by reason of its cause, increases merit, whereas
strength of concupiscence diminishes it.
Reply Obj. 3: The will is more akin to the reason than the concupiscible power is. Wherefore the good of
reason--on account of which virtue is praised by the very fact that it reaches not only to the will but also to the
concupiscible power, as happens in the temperate man--is shown to be greater than if it reach only to the will,
as in the case of one who is continent.
QUESTION 156
OF INCONTINENCE (In Four Articles)
We must now consider incontinence: and under this head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether incontinence pertains to the soul or to the body?
(2) Whether incontinence is a sin?
(3) The comparison between incontinence and intemperance;
(4) Which is the worse, incontinence in anger, or incontinence in desire?
FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 156, Art. 1]
Whether Incontinence Pertains to the Soul or to the Body?
Objection 1: It would seem that incontinence pertains not to the soul but to the body. For sexual diversity
comes not from the soul but from the body. Now sexual diversity causes diversity of incontinence: for the
Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 5) that women are not described either as continent or as incontinent. Therefore
incontinence pertains not to the soul but to the body.
Obj. 2: Further, that which pertains to the soul does not result from the temperament of the body. But
incontinence results from the bodily temperament: for the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7) that "it is especially
people of a quick or choleric and atrabilious temper whose incontinence is one of unbridled desire." Therefore
incontinence regards the body.
Obj. 3: Further, victory concerns the victor rather than the vanquished. Now a man is said to be incontinent,
because "the flesh lusteth against the spirit," and overcomes it. Therefore incontinence pertains to the flesh
rather than to the soul.
On the contrary, Man differs from beast chiefly as regards the soul. Now they differ in respect of continence
and incontinence, for we ascribe neither continence nor incontinence to the beasts, as the Philosopher states
(Ethic. vii, 3). Therefore incontinence is chiefly on the part of the soul.
I answer that, Things are ascribed to their direct causes rather than to those which merely occasion them. Now
that which is on the part of the body is merely an occasional cause of incontinence; since it is owing to a
bodily disposition that vehement passions can arise in the sensitive appetite which is a power of the organic
body. Yet these passions, however vehement they be, are not the sufficient cause of incontinence, but are